Yancha Gal no Anjou-san - Vol. 14 Ch. 175 - Flight Response Scramble

[KellikL]

I'm using an example of a staggeringly more successful business continually not using its resources to make better products of a particular kind, while arguing that their continued success with even those products (despite the criticisms of those who continue to buy them) is more likely to signal that they don't have to up their product quality despite the complaints.

Neither the scale nor the consumer product type matters for this very general argument.


You didn't do that. Your proposition was, facile jabs at capitalism aside, wishful thinking completely divorced from the concept of market pressure. It amounts to "if we give them a lot of money in exchange for their product regardless of product quality, they'll start making better product (out of the goodness of their hearts, of course)".

It's a naïve idea that doesn't acknowledge that product improvement involves taking on additional costs (that they have no certainty will be more-than-recouped) that will more likely be seen as unnecessary if they're already exceeding their targets because of their present product quality. If they have more money despite not already upping their quality, they're more likely to choose to not risk shrinking their profit margins, meaning they won't change. The only reason they would change, at that point, is ideological or otherwise personal-- because it certainly isn't monetary.

Even when they lose money, that doesn't necessarily indicate to them that they have to improve their product, especially if they're more ideologically than financially motivated (which is expected from people with either nothing to lose or a lot to spend). It certainly would incline them more, versus just getting money for their present product quality.

That's why I said that this is fundamentally a problem of people not doing their jobs right, for whatever reasons. You can't just fix that by throwing money at it-- enough people, and particularly enough of the most critical operators, need to have intrinsic interest.

Having seen the wages paid to actual JP translators in the market, there IS an argument to be made about pay more get more. In capitalism, you'll only have competing market pressures when the size of the market goes past a certain point. In niche markets your margins are so thin, you basically pay for what you can get. Again, to use Pokemon as an example, there's no market incentive to create a better product because the BRAND itself has value. A monopoly doesn't have to iterate or improve in quality, it just has to come close to certain expected standards.
Having worked in publication, the margins are far thinner than you seem to believe. Out of pocket costs for 60k EN words to JP is a little under 1000 USD for what currently amounts to TOP translation efforts. In order for people taking these jobs to SURVIVE, a lot of them have to take on multiple projects quickly. Volume work on a timeline does not usually translate to high quality. The old adage, you can have things fast, cheap, or good..pick 2 applies HEAVILY to niche and emergent markets. Each new translation is a risk that producers have to calculate.
When I say, throw more money at it, I mean specifically in order to create a competitive market where demand for higher quality is greater than the costs.
None of the companies paying for localization are Ideologically motivated over their finances...That made me laugh though.

 

[Eighty-six]

Having seen the wages paid to actual JP translators in the market, there IS an argument to be made about pay more get more.

The peanuts that JP translators often get paid doesn't make that argument. They won't magically become better just because those contracting them are getting paid more, nor will they even necessarily be paid more. Implicit to your position is that the publishers getting more money means that the contractors will get more money (trickle-down economics?), but you have yet to demonstrate how that additional money will reach the contractors outside of ideological or otherwise personal motivations.

Again, to use Pokemon as an example, there's no market incentive to create a better product because the BRAND itself has value.

This doesn't undermine my point-- it just gives further explanation for it.

A monopoly doesn't have to iterate or improve in quality, it just has to come close to certain expected standards.

The Pokémon Company doesn't operate as a monopoly.

Having worked in publication, the margins are far thinner than you seem to believe.

In general, profit margins are thin. Exactly how thin they are doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this discussion.

When I say, throw more money at it, I mean specifically in order to create a competitive market where demand for higher quality is greater than the costs.

My point is that there's no audible demand for quality where they're turning up profit, and the demand for quality may be audible when they're taking on loss (whether they respond appropriately is another matter). In the former case, they are being validated for their current quality if they're turning up profit for their current quality, so there's no point in blindly consuming more to throw more money at them.

No form of your plan works out in this context because of the nature of the products at hand as well as rights distribution. We don't get the opportunity to choose between multiple and concurrently printed translations of the same product by different publishers-- just the one publisher is allowed to produce a translation of a work and distribute it in a region, and whether they'll hire competent people for the translation is a crapshoot. Meanwhile, the consumer isn't buying according to translation quality, because that's not what's being advertised. They're buying according to the title they want to consume, which under normal circumstances will only ever be translated and distributed by one publisher in a region. For that reason, there's no way to signal to executives a demand for higher quality through consuming their product.

There may be value in the publishers being invested into in order to improve their translation quality, but that's not accomplished by consumption of their product.

None of the companies paying for localization are Ideologically motivated over their finances

I made the proviso I did for a reason. Under normal circumstances, you're correct.

 

[KellikL]

The peanuts that JP translators often get paid doesn't make that argument. They won't magically become better just because those contracting them are getting paid more, nor will they even necessarily be paid more. Implicit to your position is that the publishers getting more money means that the contractors will get more money (trickle-down economics?), but you have yet to demonstrate how that additional money will reach the contractors outside of ideological or otherwise personal motivations.


This doesn't undermine my point-- it just gives further explanation for it.


The Pokémon Company doesn't operate as a monopoly.


In general, profit margins are thin. Exactly how thin they are doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this discussion.


My point is that there's no audible demand for quality where they're turning up profit, and the demand for quality may be audible when they're taking on loss (whether they respond appropriately is another matter). In the former case, they are being validated for their current quality if they're turning up profit for their current quality, so there's no point in blindly consuming more to throw more money at them.

No form of your plan works out in this context because of the nature of the products at hand as well as rights distribution. We don't get the opportunity to choose between multiple and concurrently printed translations of the same product by different publishers-- just the one publisher is allowed to produce a translation of a work and distribute it in a region, and whether they'll hire competent people for the translation is a crapshoot. Meanwhile, the consumer isn't buying according to translation quality, because that's not what's being advertised. They're buying according to the title they want to consume, which under normal circumstances will only ever be translated and distributed by one publisher in a region. For that reason, there's no way to signal to executives a demand for higher quality through consuming their product.

There may be value in the publishers being invested into in order to improve their translation quality, but that's not accomplished by consumption of their product.


I made the proviso I did for a reason. Under normal circumstances, you're correct.

Sigh. When it comes to market costs for localization, market size is a huge part of what drives costs. The same work that localizes in JP/EN for 900ish will cost 4-500% more in Germany because of the size of the market and the RoI. There's a MUCH more rabid and competitive market for high value/high quality talent strictly because the rate of return is so much better. Putting money into a market increases the value of that market. Increased demand means higher competition for quality to stand out against competing products. Publication in general isn't a highly competitive market when you're talking about producers/rights, but quality is a factor of production. We've terminated many editors whose quality failed to meet standards the market demanded. Sales are the biggest part of how we determine what to invest capital in. When missing those standards risks the ROI you bet your ASS we pay more for better quality. NOT buying the product doesn't incentivize us to invest...at all. We just move on to the next thing. In many of these cases, there's a back and forth between the creatives and the translator, or the translator is part of a quality team with multiple moving parts...work that anyone who has EVER worked on a project is familiar with. Assigning some sort of ideological end goal to a work by an operational team that's solely motivated by profit generation is pretty damned funny. You want higher quality of translations? Make it worth it. There are ideologically driven publishers out there, but they generally focus on content designed to drive that specific ideology. Manga isn't a big enough market for us to give a shit. You are sorta right about the point where "why spend more if you're profitable on less" but that only works if you're looking at a piece and not the whole of a market. The goal is to create a market where the risk of financial loss for shit quality is greater than the cost of that quality. You don't get there by not spending money.

 

[KellikL]

Also, branding can be functionally a type of monopoly in effect. JK Rowling can wipe a wiki article with her ass and make millions even if it's a sloppy, unedited, trite piece of offal. Apple might not be the only smartphone out there, but their walled garden makes leaving painful enough to encourage a subconscious loyalty. The reason you don't see a ton of pokemon clones out there, or some sort of higher quality pokemon, is that the brand recognition overshadows that segment. Competitors need to iterate AND differentiate while still finding room to appeal and that drives higher costs just to FIND a market. People tend to look at their favorite author/artist and assume success because THEY like them, but the reality is that even published authors with large backing have to diversify their portfolio.

 

[Eighty-six]

Increased demand means higher competition for quality to stand out against competing products.

Higher labor supply does that, because the multiplicity of laborers (firms or individuals) persuades each one to find a way to distinguish themselves for employer attention. Increased demand by itself only beckons for the meeting of said demand-- in fact it decreases labor competition according to how many hands the employer needs.

We've terminated many editors whose quality failed to meet standards the market demanded.

Generally speaking: how high are those standards? How much is under that term "standards the market demanded" that has to do with translation quality?

NOT buying the product doesn't incentivize us to invest...at all. We just move on to the next thing.

And buying the product to the point that profit is turned, absent any change in production quality to merit the purchase, doesn't incentivize the seeking of higher translation quality on its own. Instead, it masks from the executives any desire for translation quality because what ends up being signaled is that the product is good enough.

I'm not suggesting that starving publishers is the way to go to get improvements. I'm arguing that this isn't an issue that can be fixed with sales money, especially if the increased revenue comes before attempts to improve, because that won't signal a need for improvement.

More sales money, to the point of profit, indicates that there's no problem that's worth spending money fixing. Less sales money, to the point of loss, can indicate any number of things but will-- to the executives, absent awareness of internet discussions about translation-- likely indicate that the title itself is unpopular, not that the overall quality of the product is bad, or that the translation is bad. And of course, it may encourage them to pay for cheap and unreliable translation services. But then again, they may still keep doing that even when they get more money.

My point about investment was me trying to be creative about solutions, given my position that we can't just buy our way out of this issue. An investment doesn't reinforce behavior like sales do.

In many of these cases, there's a back and forth between the creatives and the translator

I'm aware that particularly Japanese creatives are often rubber stamps that assume that the translator isn't incompetent or malicious, not least of all because they're not the ones who know English. It's obviously far less likely for the creatives to be involved in the translation process if the creator is still actively releasing, and even less so if the work is simultaneously published-- that's just a matter of not having the time.

Assigning some sort of ideological end goal to a work by an operational team that's solely motivated by profit generation is pretty damned funny.

I'm not the one claiming that ideology is necessarily the sole end goal of the executives, in the same way I'm not claiming that ideology is necessarily the sole end goal of the contractors (who are more likely to bear and act according to said ideologies) producing poor localizations.

Also, branding can be functionally a type of monopoly in effect.

A company being extremely successful, for whatever reason, doesn't mean it holds a monopoly-- a monopoly is a monopoly because it has exclusive control on the trade of some commodity (and I don't think that definition can meaningfully apply to companies centered around some IP). Monopolies have no need to improve their product because there are no commercial alternatives to them. Massively successful companies (such as The Pokémon Company) have no serious need to improve their products because of substantial interest and/or brand loyalty translating into sustained profit that can grow even more if they cut just enough costs that won't cause disloyalty that translates into loss.

 

[KellikL]

Higher labor supply does that, because the multiplicity of laborers (firms or individuals) persuades each one to find a way to distinguish themselves for employer attention. Increased demand by itself only beckons for the meeting of said demand-- in fact it decreases labor competition according to how many hands the employer needs.


Generally speaking: how high are those standards? How much is under that term "standards the market demanded" that has to do with translation quality?


And buying the product to the point that profit is turned, absent any change in production quality to merit the purchase, doesn't incentivize the seeking of higher translation quality on its own. Instead, it masks from the executives any desire for translation quality because what ends up being signaled is that the product is good enough.

I'm not suggesting that starving publishers is the way to go to get improvements. I'm arguing that this isn't an issue that can be fixed with sales money, especially if the increased revenue comes before attempts to improve, because that won't signal a need for improvement.

More sales money, to the point of profit, indicates that there's no problem that's worth spending money fixing. Less sales money, to the point of loss, can indicate any number of things but will-- to the executives, absent awareness of internet discussions about translation-- likely indicate that the title itself is unpopular, not that the overall quality of the product is bad, or that the translation is bad. And of course, it may encourage them to pay for cheap and unreliable translation services. But then again, they may still keep doing that even when they get more money.

My point about investment was me trying to be creative about solutions, given my position that we can't just buy our way out of this issue. An investment doesn't reinforce behavior like sales do.


I'm aware that particularly Japanese creatives are often rubber stamps that assume that the translator isn't incompetent or malicious, not least of all because they're not the ones who know English. It's obviously far less likely for the creatives to be involved in the translation process if the creator is still actively releasing, and even less so if the work is simultaneously published-- that's just a matter of not having the time.


I'm not the one claiming that ideology is necessarily the sole end goal of the executives, in the same way I'm not claiming that ideology is necessarily the sole end goal of the contractors (who are more likely to bear and act according to said ideologies) producing poor localizations.


A company being extremely successful, for whatever reason, doesn't mean it holds a monopoly-- a monopoly is a monopoly because it has exclusive control on the trade of some commodity (and I don't think that definition can meaningfully apply to companies centered around some IP). Monopolies have no need to improve their product because there are no commercial alternatives to them. Massively successful companies (such as The Pokémon Company) have no serious need to improve their products because of substantial interest and/or brand loyalty translating into sustained profit that can grow even more if they cut just enough costs that won't cause disloyalty that translates into loss.

Some good points. In my experience, higher labor supply doesn't drive costs up, but I'm not necessarily concerned with labor as a vehicle in costs and I don't know many publishers that are. I'll pay FAR above market rates for quality contract work, but we're also in a much more competitive market sphere than Manga/Anime. A higher potential RoI balances out costs of localization for market penetration and increases demand for quality labor as a means of distinguishing yourself from the competition. If we can sell 30k units to Germany with a 3500 dollar buy in in one month, it takes less than a week to break even and the rest of that return can be used to expand into other production efforts like VA/audio/advertising. If it takes me a year to break even on the 1k I spend localizing to America or Japan, then it's not worth the expenditure. When you're considering the effect of localization, I'm looking at how long it will take me to make a return. Italy? France? Not really big reader markets, localization is cheaper(italy...france is a PITA), but it takes longer to make a return or see a profit. My point is that Manga readership being a niche market means you can get away with spending less on development because the readership is small, but voracious. People will be PASSIONATE about a series, but sales won't hold up on the back end. Hell, I've had creatives get messages from readers saying shit like, "if you don't write X, I will never buy your product ever again." To an established creative, it's a joke. To a new brand starting out, weaponized social media is terrifying. I always urge caution when I see people targeting creatives (translation is a creative pursuit believe it or not, sometimes collaborative, sometimes individually) because these things can break careers at best. A lot of times in some of the bigger translation efforts, I've seen the translator overruled by other people involved in the QC process...so blind attribution by readers is dangerous as fuck and I urge against ignorance. I've helped a fair amount of translators with localizing idioms and it's NOT an easy process. When I use company success in a monopoly sense, I'm not speaking literally. I'm saying you have to do an analysis against the current market pressures to see if establishing a foothold is financially viable. Sure pokemon is successful, but is there enough market demand to ask for more of that type of product? JK Rowling's success did NOT translate into success for other (BETTER) mid grade fiction writers, even if it made scholastic a boatload of cash(their comp % to writers is some of the best in the business because their usual market is school book fairs) and too often she's held up as some sort of wild standard instead of a breakout. As in most things, I'm loathe to believe wide ranging conspiracy over free market costs and pressures. Niche markets make their money on rapid releasing content to fulfill small groups of hungry consumers. Quality doesn't often make it on the list because of the rush to market. The reflex from some vocal trolls to blame "woke" agenda translators sets my teeth on edge.